I found something.
Designing adventures based on X.P.-related systems is POINT-BASED first; say the adventure is 3rd-5th level, you calculate the amount of X.P. total, then divide the X.P. across 20 encounters.
So. For D&D 5e, an adventure from 10th-12th level = 36,000 points. Divide that by 20 encounters = 1,800. Thus each encounter should be at or around 1,800 and I can have lesser encounters below 1,800 and major encounters at or above 1,800. All I need to do is make the math make sense.
Then, I wind the math into the "story elements" of the adventure. I can have combat or social encounters, weighed on their story impact, carry varying amounts of X.P. within the parameters of my total 36,000 points. So each encounters carried as much weight as I want them to, based on story significance and character background.
The math translates to literary exposition, point by point. This is the thing that's been missed for decades among the D/GM community; the points as a hard currency attached to story elements.
The funny-side ugliness of it all is I've seen and heard so many D/GMs for ages talk about how to design great adventures, with no mention of the underlying mathematics.
People try SO HARD to separate the game from the story, but, what if they were one and the same?
This is theory. Tell me what you think. It's the only reason I'm here. Rpg.net wouldn't let me have discussions like this. I see some sharp minds here.
Tell me what you've learned.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362Designing adventures based on X.P.-related systems is POINT-BASED first; say the adventure is 3rd-5th level, you calculate the amount of X.P. total, then divide the X.P. across 20 encounters.
So. For D&D 5e, an adventure from 10th-12th level = 36,000 points. Divide that by 20 encounters = 1,800. Thus each encounter should be at or around 1,800 and I can have lesser encounters below 1,800 and major encounters at or above 1,800. All I need to do is make the math make sense.
Then, I wind the math into the "story elements" of the adventure. I can have combat or social encounters, weighed on their story impact, carry varying amounts of X.P. within the parameters of my total 36,000 points. So each encounters carried as much weight as I want them to, based on story significance and character background.
The math translates to literary exposition, point by point. This is the thing that's been missed for decades among the D/GM community; the points as a hard currency attached to story elements.
The funny-side ugliness of it all is I've seen and heard so many D/GMs for ages talk about how to design great adventures, with no mention of the underlying mathematics.
People try SO HARD to separate the game from the story, but, what if they were one and the same?
This is theory. Tell me what you think. It's the only reason I'm here. Rpg.net wouldn't let me have discussions like this. I see some sharp minds here.
Tell me what you've learned.
Somewhere between the Mathematics and the "Story" is something more important - the Game.
Designing adventures for me is, "this is the conflict". To the players - "Go figure out how to resolve it." In between those two positions is an entire world I've created for them to frolic, commit murder and mayhem, and be heroes/villains to their hearts content. They might even get around to solving that problem...
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362The funny-side ugliness of it all is I've seen and heard so many D/GMs for ages talk about how to design great adventures, with no mention of the underlying mathematics.
People try SO HARD to separate the game from the story, but, what if they were one and the same?
This is theory. Tell me what you think. It's the only reason I'm here. Rpg.net wouldn't let me have discussions like this. I see some sharp minds here.
Tell me what you've learned.
That, is Math.
The resulting points you get are one possible guide as for what opposition to use.
However, this is only required if you do not already have a good idea of what the story should be about.
It also subsequently has close to nothing to actually do with actually making the adventures great.
On the other hand ....
A lot of New GMs have no clues about how to design adventures, and that could be a decent starting point.
Doing the math for the adventure in this manner is akin to early English grammar, as taught by the typical American English grade school teacher: It's mostly correct as far as it goes, but they insist on a few "rules" that aren't. It's a good starting point if you remember later to selectively break the rules when warranted, not so good if you rigidly stick to it.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362Rpg.net wouldn't let me have discussions like this. I see some sharp minds here.
Not even on the d20 forum?
I'm fairly certain you could have this conversation on either forum of RPGNet were you so inclined. The mods might be certifiable, but game mechanics and adventure design are pretty "safe" topics over there.
In D&D I have the players set goals. I award those goals a certain amount of XP based on the perceived difficulty. Players know how much in advance and they have to commit to it and agree to it. Then if they do that thing they get the XP. If they fail, but they really gave it a good attempt, they can get half.
XP set is based on looking at the level table. If players set the goal "kill the pirate king and take his place as lord of all the pirates" when they're second level, then they can see if the XP award I set for it would be enough to take them immediately to 8th level that they're probably not going to achieve it directly and they can either set a different goal or consider how to break the original goal into a immediate first step (ie "Get our own ship and become pirates"). It makes sure that all PCs are on the same page - because they have to actually talk about and agree what they want to do rather than wander around aimlessly waiting for the GM to throw the plot at them. It also means that the players and myself have a shared understanding of the level of difficulty an enterprise is likely to entail.
Individual PCs can also personal set goals, but these tend to be worth less xp as I try to avoid uneven levelling. If other PCs help achieve the goal they get half. I generally encourage personal goals to be based on things that arise during the game and not random crap written down in character backgrounds.
I give no XP directly for killing monsters unless that was the PC's specific goal.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1087476I'm fairly certain you could have this conversation on either forum of RPGNet were you so inclined. The mods might be certifiable, but game mechanics and adventure design are pretty "safe" topics over there.
You can but..
1) You have to deal with the passive aggressive posting style.
2) If you snap at someone who's rude to you (or just point it out - see 1) a mod will kick you out of the thread.
3) Someone may have a victimised whinge that their own personal preferences in gaming are not being sufficiently validated in a bizarre and irrelevant attempt to claim the moral high ground. "How dare anybody claim that half-gully dwarves/half kender paladins are a silly PC concept - they happen to be my favourite PC type to play and I'm sick of everyone looking down on me for my preferences".
4) A mod may decide because they don't like the direction of the thread (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/playing-5e-makes-me-miss-4e-hard.845052/page-24#post-22581987) they will randomly prevent people from talking about it, but forgo actually seeing if anyone has broken any rules because they're being "lenient (https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/playing-5e-makes-me-miss-4e-hard.845052/page-29#post-22587608)".
Quote from: tenbones;1087381Somewhere between the Mathematics and the "Story" is something more important - the Game.
Designing adventures for me is, "this is the conflict". To the players - "Go figure out how to resolve it." In between those two positions is an entire world I've created for them to frolic, commit murder and mayhem, and be heroes/villains to their hearts content. They might even get around to solving that problem...
THIS is what I mean. I'll digest this for days. Thank YOU, 10Bones.
Quote from: Catelf;1087386That, is Math.
The resulting points you get are one possible guide as for what opposition to use.
However, this is only required if you do not already have a good idea of what the story should be about.
It also subsequently has close to nothing to actually do with actually making the adventures great.
On the other hand ....
A lot of New GMs have no clues about how to design adventures, and that could be a decent starting point.
I look at this as you say --- soft-ugly science. Chance this kind of debate among peoples? I can use more of this.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1087387Doing the math for the adventure in this manner is akin to early English grammar, as taught by the typical American English grade school teacher: It's mostly correct as far as it goes, but they insist on a few "rules" that aren't. It's a good starting point if you remember later to selectively break the rules when warranted, not so good if you rigidly stick to it.
Wow. See this is what I mean by "sharp minds" here. It's very much like there are tabletop Ph.Ds here that only discuss anything when rudely confronted. Expect further -
Quote from: S'mon;1087425Not even on the d20 forum?
See. S'mon you might not be the sharpest mind here but you are easily the most outspoken AND that doubles as smartest. When I post please respond just so, like swordcraft, FIRST BLOOD.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1087476I'm fairly certain you could have this conversation on either forum of RPGNet were you so inclined. The mods might be certifiable, but game mechanics and adventure design are pretty "safe" topics over there.
I tried. The SJW Mods there control the linguistics of expression. If you know the difference between language and linguistics, you might imagine what I'm writing here. Rpg.net has become a matrix of MEANING --- not what you write, but rather what you MEAN when you write. The Mods dictate that, exactly. I could counter and lecture them using logic --- but why bother getting banned for being correct?
Quote from: TJS;1087508In D&D I have the players set goals. I award those goals a certain amount of XP based on the perceived difficulty. Players know how much in advance and they have to commit to it and agree to it. Then if they do that thing they get the XP. If they fail, but they really gave it a good attempt, they can get half.
XP set is based on looking at the level table. If players set the goal "kill the pirate king and take his place as lord of all the pirates" when they're second level, then they can see if the XP award I set for it would be enough to take them immediately to 8th level that they're probably not going to achieve it directly and they can either set a different goal or consider how to break the original goal into a immediate first step (ie "Get our own ship and become pirates"). It makes sure that all PCs are on the same page - because they have to actually talk about and agree what they want to do rather than wander around aimlessly waiting for the GM to throw the plot at them. It also means that the players and myself have a shared understanding of the level of difficulty an enterprise is likely to entail.
Individual PCs can also personal set goals, but these tend to be worth less xp as I try to avoid uneven levelling. If other PCs help achieve the goal they get half. I generally encourage personal goals to be based on things that arise during the game and not random crap written down in character backgrounds.
I give no XP directly for killing monsters unless that was the PC's specific goal.
I think you assume what players know versus what their characters know. You write "probably" and that's correct, but "probably" is NOT consistent with 'Adventure level 1st to 3rd'. You assume all PCs being on the same page and certain parties do not embrace such a thing. Can I reward active PCs the same as their passive compatriots? How do I encourage RP? XP is a fine method. How do you reward Han Solo, with no background and having only wealth as motivation (until he falls for that young princess)?
How do you reward a character who is evolving into the character he needs to be for your game? I think it's more than what we're discussing RIGHT NOW.
I wish I had the vernacular to discuss this topic like a Big Boy. Right now, I need the heads here to inform me. Then, we can ex-change.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087530See. S'mon you might not be the sharpest mind here
Eh, no offence mate, but I probably am the sharpest mind here. :p
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362Tell me what you've learned.
My current system for xp based advancement systems- (All flavors of D&D, for example, I've used this with 4th ed, and 2nd ed)
First I come up with a schedule per session. I like a progression where it takes 1 session to advance from level 1 to level 2, 2 adventures to advance from level 2 to level 3, etc...
I then reverse engineer how much xp it would take per session to match that schedule. This does mean that xp awards don't match "by the book" awards.
I then divide that amount by session, and then by the expected number of encounters per session. (something like 4-8 encounters)
I put xp values on every encounter. Even empty "rooms", RP encounters, whatever. I put lower values on less meaningful enounters, and bonus xp for "hidden" stuff, and exceptional play.
A player character can earn less than the expected schedule if they play it safe, or make bad decisions. They can earn more than the expected amount with clever play or discovering hidden stuff.
PCs can earn combat rewards even if they retreat (a small amount) negotiation or driving off opponents. They don't necessarily have to kill every bug to make them poop out xp.
So that's a rough overview. I like giving the players the ability to earn more or less depending on what risks they decide to take and decisions they decide to make.
Quote from: S'mon;1087533Eh, no offence mate, but I probably am the sharpest mind here. :p
Your RPG Skill check is always a crit success - yes. I sit back wondering how you can educate me, without the whole "I'm smarter than You" mantra.
I read MOST of what you post and I think there's more than Primeval Thule. Maybe more. Probably more.
When I post anywhere online, there's a high wall of flame behind me composed of everything I love; Arcanum 2E (1985). Mighty Protectors. Wushu. GURPS 4E.
FUCK what I like.
Tell me what you know.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362I found something.
Designing adventures based on X.P.-related systems is POINT-BASED first; say the adventure is 3rd-5th level, you calculate the amount of X.P. total, then divide the X.P. across 20 encounters.
So. For D&D 5e, an adventure from 10th-12th level = 36,000 points. Divide that by 20 encounters = 1,800. Thus each encounter should be at or around 1,800 and I can have lesser encounters below 1,800 and major encounters at or above 1,800. All I need to do is make the math make sense.
Then, I wind the math into the "story elements" of the adventure. I can have combat or social encounters, weighed on their story impact, carry varying amounts of X.P. within the parameters of my total 36,000 points. So each encounters carried as much weight as I want them to, based on story significance and character background.
The math translates to literary exposition, point by point. This is the thing that's been missed for decades among the D/GM community; the points as a hard currency attached to story elements.
The funny-side ugliness of it all is I've seen and heard so many D/GMs for ages talk about how to design great adventures, with no mention of the underlying mathematics.
People try SO HARD to separate the game from the story, but, what if they were one and the same?
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362This is theory. Tell me what you think. It's the only reason I'm here. Rpg.net wouldn't let me have discussions like this. I see some sharp minds here.
Tell me what you've learned.
Imagine an interesting situation, write up the locales, write up the NPCs/Monsters, and figure out what their goals are when the players stumble into the situation.
Oh and fuck the math. The situation it what it is.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362Designing adventures based on X.P.-related systems is POINT-BASED first; say the adventure is 3rd-5th level, you calculate the amount of X.P. total, then divide the X.P. across 20 encounters.
So. For D&D 5e, an adventure from 10th-12th level = 36,000 points. Divide that by 20 encounters = 1,800. Thus each encounter should be at or around 1,800 and I can have lesser encounters below 1,800 and major encounters at or above 1,800. All I need to do is make the math make sense.
Then, I wind the math into the "story elements" of the adventure. I can have combat or social encounters, weighed on their story impact, carry varying amounts of X.P. within the parameters of my total 36,000 points. So each encounters carried as much weight as I want them to, based on story significance and character background.
The math translates to literary exposition, point by point. This is the thing that's been missed for decades among the D/GM community; the points as a hard currency attached to story elements.
The funny-side ugliness of it all is I've seen and heard so many D/GMs for ages talk about how to design great adventures, with no mention of the underlying mathematics.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362People try SO HARD to separate the game from the story, but, what if they were one and the same?
It not hard particularly for D&D type games. First and foremost referee needs to figure out what level means in their campaign. For me it means 1st are trained apprentices, 3rd are professional, 5th are skilled professionals, and 9th is a leader in one's field. Other have different views. Irregardless the monster HD (or Challenge Level) follow the same pattern. In my view a 5 HD monsters is something that can face down a skill professional in a one on one fight. A CR 5 monster can face down a team of skilled professionals (in theory).
With that as my viewpoint statting out creatures and NPCs stems from their descriptions. For example my village priests are generally around 3rd to 4th level. A veteran Lord of the Manor probably around 5th level. While a young lord just out their minority is probably 3rd level having gained 1st and 2nd level as a squire.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087362Designing adventures based on X.P.-related systems is POINT-BASED first; say the adventure is 3rd-5th level, you calculate the amount of X.P. total, then divide the X.P. across 20 encounters.
Then the adventure will feel artificial and slited. Life or rather interesting situation to experience as adventurers don't neatly lend themselves to chunks of points.
But there are situations where this works particularly when the locale or setting is a maze with monster or treasure filled room arranged in levels where it gets increasingly difficult the further down you go. In this case looking at the different mazes as chunks of points plays into the player's expectation.
Wrapping it up
Yes I am negative about your approach. Because the notion of challenge levels, and such are tools to be used by novices not the pinnacle of design. Trying to figure out how to run a RPG campaign for the first time can be daunting for a referee. What gets them over that hurdle is an asset. But the end goal this not rely on them. Instead in time one should their experience to devise interesting situations and/or interesting locales to adventure in. What interesting? Well that depends on your group, and what your skill and interest lend themselves too. The only hard and fast rule is try and learn from as many different things as you have time and interest for.
1
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087539Tell me what you know.
Er...
Well I have a few things on this blog http://simonyrpgs.blogspot.com/
But well most of what I know is Contract Law, Intellectual Property Law, how to survive in an academic environment when you're
just slightly :D to the Right of your typical colleague, how to survive the University bureaucracy (a soul-crushing endeavour), a bit of science (especially cosmology & evolution), and quite a lot about politics, history, and military theory. Most of that isn't stuff I talk about here much, obviously.
When it comes to adventure design, I agree with estar about 'fuck the math'. I tend to use a lot of random generation + published adventures to avoid thinking in terms of 'design' at all.
I do adjust a little bit, eg I'm currently running a level 10-12 adventure. I started off with mostly 3rd level PCs, but today when only two players turned up I bumped them to 5th to give them a good shot (they have a bunch of NPC redshirts & can recruit more in play). And two of the encounters today (https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2019/05/sunday-session-9-2911-to-3112-2213.html) were with Challenge 6 monsters. So I do quite like to keep things in the general ball park.
Re XP, my current system is here: http://simonyrpgs.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-new-xp-system.html - 10 or 20 XP to level up.
Basically, I run the fight/encounter, THEN decide how much XP it was worth - from 1 for something moderate to 4 or 5 for a likely-TPK.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087530I think you assume what players know versus what their characters know. You write "probably" and that's correct, but "probably" is NOT consistent with 'Adventure level 1st to 3rd'. You assume all PCs being on the same page and certain parties do not embrace such a thing. Can I reward active PCs the same as their passive compatriots? How do I encourage RP? XP is a fine method. How do you reward Han Solo, with no background and having only wealth as motivation (until he falls for that young princess)?
How do you reward a character who is evolving into the character he needs to be for your game? I think it's more than what we're discussing RIGHT NOW.
.
You don't need to reward things that are inherently rewarding on their own.
The reward for better role-playing is that the player is having more fun. The reward for more active involvement is more active involvement.
Quote from: S'mon;1087544When it comes to adventure design, I agree with estar about 'fuck the math'. I tend to use a lot of random generation + published adventures to avoid thinking in terms of 'design' at all.
I do adjust a little bit, eg I'm currently running a level 10-12 adventure. I started off with mostly 3rd level PCs, but today when only two players turned up I bumped them to 5th to give them a good shot (they have a bunch of NPC redshirts & can recruit more in play). And two of the encounters today (https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2019/05/sunday-session-9-2911-to-3112-2213.html) were with Challenge 6 monsters. So I do quite like to keep things in the general ball park.
Re XP, my current system is here: http://simonyrpgs.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-new-xp-system.html - 10 or 20 XP to level up.
Basically, I run the fight/encounter, THEN decide how much XP it was worth - from 1 for something moderate to 4 or 5 for a likely-TPK.
Greetings!
Yeah, my friend. I agree. Fuck the math!:D
I usually have an area, say some new area the group has moved into, say by arriving at some squalid, backwater town on the edge of fucking nowhere. I have several sketched adventures thrown out, then fleshed out by a mix of lower-level and at-level monsters, bandits, whatever. Then I think of the geography and history, and seed the place with whatever appropriate terrors that hve lairs and strongholds throughout the region, regardless of the level of the party. In the north, are ancient citdels full of especially warlike orcs, ruled by evil wraith-knights. In the east, may be a family of powerful dragons, that rule over several clans of savage lizard men. In the south, a vast horde of beastmen gibber and howl through the forests, ruled by powerful evil champions and Minotaur Lords. In the west, tribes of degenerate human barbarians carry out human sacrifices to great altars amidst vine-choked megalithic cities, ruled by a group of ancient, malevolent Tyrannosaurus God-Kings. Then underground I have a vast subterranean city of evil fishmen, ruled by a few dozen Aboleth.
Amidst all the slavery, blood, and chaos, I sprinkle in a few unicorns or happy dryad women in the forest, or a rainbow Barney that is benevolent and compassionate.:D
Toss in a few random ruins, monasteries, and ancient, blasted cities, and it's all good.
I just wait for the party to step outside the ramshackle town gates, and ask them what direction they go in.:D
Then the screaming begins....LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I tend to use challenge ratings, but not in the way that WotC presents them. It is probably a middle ground in between WotC and what you'll often see advocated here. Specifically, I try to get a sense of the challenge ratings not in order to let them guide the challenges, but instead use them for how I present the rumors, effects, and so forth from something once it's placed. Crudely:
1. WotC - put the CR 8 dragon in a spot because you wanted a dragon and you wanted exactly a CR 8 encounter.
2. Smon/Estar - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what the setting calls for. Leave it at that.
3. Me - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what what I want. Use CR to guide the placement of clues about the difficulty of the encounter.
Now in practice, I doubt it's that much difference. Some GMs get an intuitive sense of how they want to handle clues and other information about danger, whether from osmosis, long experience, or something else. I had it with AD&D, but with later versions, I'd rather systemize the gaining of that knowledge.
Also, I have very definite preferences on how I want to handle characters of different levels, players that aren't always attending, and other such concerns with a rotating cast. I've found by doing the math on XP that in 5E about +20% XP for any character below the max level in the group will give me so close to the result that I want, that I then rarely need to think about it further. That's handy for me, because I don't enjoy making a lot of ad hoc GM decisions on such things. If you do the math on any such thing, it should be with the idea of making it easier to handle something than you could by other means.
Quote from: SHARK;1087578I usually have an area, say some new area the group has moved into, say by arriving at some squalid, backwater town on the edge of fucking nowhere. I have several sketched adventures thrown out, then fleshed out by a mix of lower-level and at-level monsters, bandits, whatever. Then I think of the geography and history, and seed the place with whatever appropriate terrors that hve lairs and strongholds throughout the region, regardless of the level of the party. In the north, are ancient citdels full of especially warlike orcs, ruled by evil wraith-knights. In the east, may be a family of powerful dragons, that rule over several clans of savage lizard men. In the south, a vast horde of beastmen gibber and howl through the forests, ruled by powerful evil champions and Minotaur Lords. In the west, tribes of degenerate human barbarians carry out human sacrifices to great altars amidst vine-choked megalithic cities, ruled by a group of ancient, malevolent Tyrannosaurus God-Kings. Then underground I have a vast subterranean city of evil fishmen, ruled by a few dozen Aboleth.
Amidst all the slavery, blood, and chaos, I sprinkle in a few unicorns or happy dryad women in the forest, or a rainbow Barney that is benevolent and compassionate.:D
I always love your stuff, SHARK. :cool:
This sounds very like the Primeval Thule game I'm running, except I'm using a bunch of published adventures seeded throughout the campaign area, and there's usually one or two obvious hooks at a time - but with two parrallel adventuring groups still a lot of interesting dynamics crop up. Plus there's a lot of intrigue in the Big City, Quodeth, as the PCs seek social advancement and powerful nobles plot and conspire against each other. Recently PC noble Zerda of House Sevaschu sent a warning to his sinister patron, the warlock Prince Dredan Taroth, that the Grand Vizier was plotting against Prince Dredan. AFAIK this was a bare faced lie to get revenge on the Grand Vizier for being dismissive of Zerda at an audience with Queen Deyane earlier - Zerda has his sights on the young queen, but of course is far from the only one...
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;10875791. WotC - put the CR 8 dragon in a spot because you wanted a dragon and you wanted exactly a CR 8 encounter.
2. Smon/Estar - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what the setting calls for. Leave it at that.
3. Me - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what what I want. Use CR to guide the placement of clues about the difficulty of the encounter.
I'm more a mix of #2 and #3. Certainly there are status quo encounters IMC, eg the ancient black dragon Matriarx was sleeping on her island for years of game & real time before a PC woke her up. :) But this was a widely known threat in-world.
I even do a bit of #1, eg running Secret of the Moon Door written for level 10-12 adapted for level 5 I've been editing some of the encounters beyond the Moon Door for balance as well as fun:
- Remove CR 5 'troll-thing' accompanying first CR 8 moon beast guard.
- The low-CR Quaggoth slaves now may not be loyal to their moon beast master, and could be recruited as allies
- Moon beast torturing chained CR 6 wyvern-thing - if freed the 'wyvern' will attack the moon beast, not the PCs as written
OTOH I am leaving unchanged:
- The 2 CR 8 moon beasts together in the barracks are best avoided
- BBEG Dhargo Maath is still a level 14 wizard (with a CR 4 minotaur) and might well TPK the party - but as per the adventure, he can be negotiated with to hand over his captive.
So effectively a mix of 'tailoring' and 'status quo', with pure hack & slash inadvisable, instead there are now
- 1 winnable straight fight
- 2 encounters where the PCs can potentially recruit allies
- 1 encounter best avoided, likely by scouting/stealth
- 1 encounter best dealt with through diplomacy, though combat is possible if very risky
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;10875792. Smon/Estar - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what the setting calls for. Leave it at that.
3. Me - put the dragon of some type and personality in the spot because that's what what I want. Use CR to guide the placement of clues about the difficulty of the encounter.
I believe you find that in our respective writings (blogs and forums) S'mon and I do clue in the PCs who take the time to investigate.
It not a case of hardy-har! Look at what you just ran into!
For example Dearthwood next to the City-State of the Invincible Overlord in my Majestic Wilderlands. The chances are decent that a 1st level party can travel into the woods for a couple of miles and explore a ruin. And that is that. The odds of encounter a high hit dice creatures are low because there not a lot of them compared to smaller hit dice inhabitants.
How I run things PCs are generally aware of how deadly the forest is. Particularly that there are sites and regions where truly terrifying creatures are found. Reliable rumors about what lies within a half day walk (5 leagues or 5 hours walking) into the forest are readily available, thus allow the PCs to avoid those area in favor of their target.
However if they try to go deeper in the woods or stay longer than necessary then the odds increase by a lot that they will run into something they can't handle.
Map with Scale (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uFRryp40Yc8/U9cNuxvWrZI/AAAAAAAAKEo/zr-IEJoRwpU/s1600/Dearthwood+Forest+Rev+3.jpg) (small hex = 1 league = 1 hour of walking)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3391[/ATTACH]
S'mon and Estar: Right. That's why I said it was a crude breakdown, and then followed up with this:
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1087579Now in practice, I doubt it's that much difference. Some GMs get an intuitive sense of how they want to handle clues and other information about danger, whether from osmosis, long experience, or something else. I had it with AD&D, but with later versions, I'd rather systemize the gaining of that knowledge.
I suspect that what I did with AD&D is very similar to what you do now, while the difference in what I do now is that I'm doing something expressly analytical that informs how I place the clues. It might be "fuck the math" on placement, but it isn't "fuck the math" in general.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087530I think you assume what players know versus what their characters know. You write "probably" and that's correct, but "probably" is NOT consistent with 'Adventure level 1st to 3rd'.
I don't really follow what you mean by "'Adventure level 1st to 3rd'", or why it is something I might want to be consistent with.
QuoteYou assume all PCs being on the same page and certain parties do not embrace such a thing.
I admit this confuses me as well. My xp system doesn't assume this aim it's specifically designed to
make this happen. If this is not a desirable end then of course use a different system.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087530Can I reward active PCs the same as their passive compatriots?
Well if a player never comes up with any particular goals they want their character to achieve individually then they miss out on that opportunity for some extra xp.
Quote from: Theory of Games;1087530How do I encourage RP? XP is a fine method. How do you reward Han Solo, with no background and having only wealth as motivation (until he falls for that young princess)?
How do you reward a character who is evolving into the character he needs to be for your game? I think it's more than what we're discussing RIGHT NOW.
.
Do these things need rewarding? Aren't they inherently rewarding on their own?
XP budgets have been discussed in the game for a long time.
The main issue is that, in order to work, two different things that are worth the same amount of XP should represent approximately the same amount of difficulty.
A single werebear is 1800 XP; four wererats is 1800 XP. While the wererats are individually less powerful, collectively, they're likely to pose a bigger threat to the party (assuming tactics appropriate to their intelligence, etc).
If 450+450+450+450 is greater than 1800, we don't have a true equation and we can't really rely on it to help build appropriate encounters.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087646A single werebear is 1800 XP; four wererats is 1800 XP. While the wererats are individually less powerful, collectively, they're likely to pose a bigger threat to the party (assuming tactics appropriate to their intelligence, etc).
If 450+450+450+450 is greater than 1800, we don't have a true equation and we can't really rely on it to help build appropriate encounters.
None of the three later editions 3.x, 4e, 5e, challenge level system handle synergy well. It bad enough that it still boils down to developing experience through actual play or examples of actual play.
Quote from: TJS;1087638Do these things need rewarding? Aren't they inherently rewarding on their own?
Yea, but if you're going to use an xp and level system, it's nice to have multiple ways to earn that xp. As long as the tail doesn't wag the dog. (role playing just for the xp reward)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1087658Yea, but if you're going to use an xp and level system, it's nice to have multiple ways to earn that xp. As long as the tail doesn't wag the dog. (role playing just for the xp reward)
It doesn't need complex, just award milestone and be flexible about what a milestone is.
For classic D&D I typically define the base aware to be 200xp times their level for a minor goal accomplised, or 500xp times their levels for a major goal accomplished. With goal being being whatever the player or players are trying to do. Whether it to clear a level, a dungeon, build an inn, marry a wealthy lady, or become king.
In addition I award monster XP.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087646The main issue is that, in order to work, two different things that are worth the same amount of XP should represent approximately the same amount of difficulty.
Why? Sure that can be criteria and work well in a campaign. But it doesn't has to be that way. While I will be more generous with milestone xp if the goal is actually difficult. The first thing I determine is how important the goal is to the player or group. Generally the more important the goal the more difficult it is but not always. It so nuanced that it always has to be considered on a case by case basis.
I had to do this back in the early 80s because of the multiple ways a player could take to become a king, magnate, or potentate.
While I started with the below, I simplified it to what I described above. Pretty much been using it for 3 decades whenever I run an edition of D&D.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3392[/ATTACH]
Larger Image (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BZTX-A9DIF8/TZp8gdRH-BI/AAAAAAAABMU/vFeEv0GX1qU/s1600/add_xp.jpg)
Quote from: estar;1087664Why?
The OP stated (paraphrased) that you can take the total XP required to gain a level, divide it evenly over 20 encounters, then make some encounters below the baseline and others above the baseline to vary the difficulty.
While that
ought to be true, it is
not true.
While the example I chose is illustrative, an encounter with 18 worgs also fits the 1800 XP 'per encounter budget'.
If the werebear is a cakewalk and the worgs are a TPK, it is clear that there is a problem with the way XP scales with the number of creatures.
Experimentation matters, sure, but someone needs to point out that the inputs are arbitrary, which is why the outputs don't make sense.
There are other concerns as well. For example, with 5E casual players, I'm not quite willing to drop XP for monsters altogether (or go to XP for gold), but I want to strongly discourage chasing monsters only for XP while still having lots of fights. So I give full XP for monsters handled in direct pursuit of some other goal, half XP for monsters encountered but nullified (e.g. if you co-opt them into allies, it is only half XP, but then you've got more help later and the encounter didn't take very long--it's still a great outcome for the players), and only 10% XP for random encounters. This system is made explicit to the players. I also give reward quests to each player for about 30 XP times their level, and typically have 6-8 such options available in an 8 hour session. Mainly, I'm interested in the players focusing on their goals and getting on with the game. These rewards tend to produce the results I want. With players less casual, I doubt it would work nearly as well.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1087658Yea, but if you're going to use an xp and level system, it's nice to have multiple ways to earn that xp. As long as the tail doesn't wag the dog. (role playing just for the xp reward)
The systemn I described earlier in the thread has almost infinite ways to award xp.
I don't believe in xp for role-playing.
Partly because, it leads to this uncomfortable situation where everyone gets judged on their performance like some kind of amateur theatre, partly because it tends to give additional rewards and to people who are already good at playing the game and having the most fun, and partly because, as you said, the tail can wag the dog.
The best motivator for role-playing is that if you do it you will have more fun.
Quote from: TJS;1087712Partly because, it leads to this uncomfortable situation where everyone gets judged on their performance like some kind of amateur theatre, partly because it tends to give additional rewards and to people who are already good at playing the game and having the most fun, and partly because, as you said, the tail can wag the dog.
As you can see from my documented I originally judged on the basis of roleplaying. But I found it untenable in the long run and switched to milestones set by whatever the player and the group are interested in achieving.
Considering my day job, "fuck the math" might come across as heresy but...yeah, it's not that important. As DM, you've huge leeway regarding EP awards, particularly if the players complete the adventure successfully.
At best the numbers work for single encounter design. I wouldn't dream of an adventure where every encounter has exactly 1800 EP of monsters assigned to it, even if the CR system from which those numbers derive was remotely consistent (and, it isn't)...and then you've got variables regarding particular party setup. A CR 3 mummy, for example, is a real menace against some low level parties, but if half the party has fire attacks (quite possible), it's not a threat at all.
Now, for Adventure Design, you absolutely avoid the whole "1800 EP per encounter" thing. Yes, you need encounters, but a bit of variety there is good. You should also have at least one decent puzzle or thing the players can figure out for themselves. You should also have at least one opportunity for the players to make things easy or very hard for themselves--what you do not want is an "adventure" where the players basically just mindlessly smash their faces into monsters and press "I win" buttons for each encounter (and encounters should be unique, not identical according to some spreadsheet).
When you look at classic adventures, you typically see all these features. Keep on the Borderlands had a wide variety of encounters, and if players figured out how each tribe was occupying different cave systems, and that most tribes had a structure of guardpost/warren/chieftan's room, they could help themselves. Or they could camp right in the middle of the valley and see how that works out...
Steading of the Hill Giant Chief? Lots of approaches there, but if the players figure out that all the toughest giants are partying in the main room they can give themselves a break and eventually discover giants aren't the real threat.
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? If players figure out what they're on, and take a guess that the center is probably where the commanders are, the adventure goes very differently than if they use the usual tactic of "explore every door one at a time, starting with the nearest."
Stuff like the above is why those 8-12 page adventures are standouts despite having far less detail than the much thicker "adventure books" you see today.
Quote from: SHARK;1087578Yeah, my friend. I agree. Fuck the math!:D
Agreed. I place stuff where I think it makes sense and just see what the party does with it. Gotta say it's made for way more memorable sessions this way,
especially since they've learned that I don't really consider any sort of math.
I think it makes the game world seem more real, and they act and react accordingly: I've had them bait monsters into attacking each other, run and hide from a house-sized, eye-covered and eye-gobbling raven while exploring the corpse of a wolf that ate the sun, and bargain with a mimic queen that was trying to infiltrate a port city, pretending to be an abandoned ship filled with treasure (the chests were really her spawn that got scattered about, making it easy to hunt and pick people off at night). I don't think it would happen in a game where I'm sticking to CR and EL guidelines.
I also don't try and set things up where the PCs level after an adventure (or during it). If they do, they do, if not then I'd hope that the stuff they got and the things they did were reward enough.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087672The OP stated (paraphrased) that you can take the total XP required to gain a level, divide it evenly over 20 encounters, then make some encounters below the baseline and others above the baseline to vary the difficulty.
While that ought to be true, it is not true.
While the example I chose is illustrative, an encounter with 18 worgs also fits the 1800 XP 'per encounter budget'.
If the werebear is a cakewalk and the worgs are a TPK, it is clear that there is a problem with the way XP scales with the number of creatures.
Experimentation matters, sure, but someone needs to point out that the inputs are arbitrary, which is why the outputs don't make sense.
This. And, in any case, it's not just a matter of different opponents summing up to the same amount being actually different levels of threat. There's circumstances, too.
A couple of orcish crossbowmen having night vision carefully prepare an ambush and attack the party in an open field at night.
Now take the same two crossbowmen and make them accidentally stumble upon the party around a corner in a ghost town, in broad daylight.
They are exactly the same enemies, however the two encounters are drastically different as to the level of danger.
Points are a guideline.
I think my biggest problem with the mathematically designed adventure is that, in my experience, some encounters are bypassed entirely. Is this accounted for? Also, what about 'random' encounters? Should the latter only appear to balance out the former? Seems like a needless headache to me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087672The OP stated (paraphrased) that you can take the total XP required to gain a level, divide it evenly over 20 encounters, then make some encounters below the baseline and others above the baseline to vary the difficulty.
While that ought to be true, it is not true.
While the example I chose is illustrative, an encounter with 18 worgs also fits the 1800 XP 'per encounter budget'.
If the werebear is a cakewalk and the worgs are a TPK, it is clear that there is a problem with the way XP scales with the number of creatures.
Experimentation matters, sure, but someone needs to point out that the inputs are arbitrary, which is why the outputs don't make sense.
The 5e DMG is explicit that this happens and needs to be taken into account in judging encounter difficulty, even though it doesn't effect XP reward. I don't have the DMG handy to get exact numbers, but an online calculator that pretends to emulate it treats this as:
5e CR values assume a party of 4-6 (?) characters is attacking ONE opponent.
If there are 2 opponents, add up their XP and then multiply by 1.5 to get CR value.
If there are 3-6 opponents, add up their XP and then multiply by 2.
...
So 18 worgs are ceteris paribus 4x as difficult as the wearbear: a medium-difficulty encounter for a party of four 11th-level characters, likely to kill 7th-level or lower characters. Because of the breakpoints, a single 1800xp wearbear is never "medium": it would be hard for 4 4th-level characters and easy for 4 5th-level characters.
In my experience this computation is broadly accurate for low-mid levels; the biggest problem I've had in it that it doesn't capture the fragility of new adventurers.
The CR system was revised in one of the splatbooks, but I don't have it so can't comment on that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087672Experimentation matters, sure, but someone needs to point out that the inputs are arbitrary, which is why the outputs don't make sense.
I see now what you were getting at now. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1087672While that ought to be true, it is not true.
In computer science, simulations invariably falls apart due to Chaos, inputs or data that lies between what you collected or are monitoring. We can get around this by narrowing the scope of what we are trying to calculating. Or setting things up so that Chaos happens beyond the time period we are interested in. Or the effects of Chaos are minimized for the time period we are interested.
What this means for tabletop roleplaying games that all game system are imperfect in how they represent the game world. Particularly simplistic scales like challenge ratings. But the allure remains that somehow everything can properly represented by game mechanics.
The key to making it all work has always been the human judgment as applied by the referee. The way to make good decisions is to play starting with running straightforward adventures like dungeons. Then keep expanding from there into more complex and nuanced situations.